The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-06-23
THE CABLE LINE ASSURED
The Aldermen Pass the Ordinance
Granting the Company Franchise.
The Johnson Companys Rights to North
Mississippi Street Also Declared Forfeited
Intentions of the New Company.

At the special meeting of the Board of Alder
men last night there was an Intellectual effort to
postpone the consideration of the cable-line
ordinance. Previous to the calling up of the
measure the ten members very readily voted
to concur in the action of the Council declaring
the rights of the Citizens Street-raiway Com
pany to Mississippi street forfeited. When the
resolution instructing the street COM
missioner to notify that company
that its Central-avenue tracks were
nuisance, and to take them
up if the company did not do so within six days
after notification, it also prevailed unanimously.
As the meeting had been called especially to
consider the cable-line ordinance. Alderman
Prier moved to suspend the rules and pass it at
once. This brought Alderman King to his feet.
He wanted to know "Whats the haste about
this matterl What is this meeting for, any
wayl"
81 see Colonel Dudley here" replied President
Endley eff you want any information he will
no doubt give it."
why can't the officers of that company"
Alderman King continued, "come here next
Monday night9 see reason for haste"
Alderman Prier again moved to suspend the
rules, when Alderman Schmidt moved as a sub
stltute motion refer the ordinance to spe-
cial committee of three, with instructions to re-
port their conclusions next Monday night. 10
this Alderman Prier strenuously objected. He
said the ordinance had been printed, and copy
of it had for days been in the hands of every
member. Everybody knew what it contained.
The interests of the city were fully protected by
it, and it had been searchingly examined by the
city attorney.
81 have not seen a COPY of the ordinance I'M
til tonight" said Alderman King. He was in
formed that one had been sent to him at his Of
flee some days ago. to which he replied that ne
substitute being put to vote, which resulted IN
its defeat-nays, Brown, Prier. Pritchard, Rail,
Wright, Endley-6; yeas Crosby, King, Laut and
Schmidt. The same vote reversed carried
the motion to suspend the rules.
When the ordinance reached the amending
stage, Alderman Schmidt moved to strike out in
the first section the general grant to the COM
pany of all streets and alleys of the city now
that may be hereafter laid out and not now
occupied and operated by a street railway" and
insert in place of the clause quoted, ''streets
named in Section 2 and Section of this ordi-
nance. and such other streets as may hereafter
be agreed upon between said Indian
apolis Cable Street-railway Company and
the Common Council and Board of
Aldermen of the city of Indianapolis" He said
in explanation that the ordinance placed
strictions on the company, and his amendment
wholly to provide a saving clause. When
the company wanted additional streets. it ought
to GO before the Council In the regular manner.
He did not favor giving it all the streets and for
this purpose preferred to have the ordinance 60
to a committee.
The city attorney, in reply to a question by
Alderman Prier, said that the exclusive
grant could not be given to any company
The Council had the power. to do as it
fit in giving the privilege to one
more companies 1t could also repeal the
ordinance at any time, and if the company did
not complete the work in the time specified its
rights could be declared forfeited The vote
the amendment Yeas, Crosby, King, Laut
and Schmidt-4 nays Brown, Pirer. Pritchard,
Rail, Wright and Endley-6
Alderman King asked il the ordinance pro-
vided for a bond from the company. 1t did not,
and he therefore offered an amendment which
read: ANY company accepting the provisions
Of this ordinance shall give bond of $50 000."
Alderman Prer wanted to know what the bond
was for, and Alderman King told him that the
company ought to give bond. but for
what he did not state. Alderman wight
also asked Cor information the same point,
but the author of the amendment was still in
the fog The city attorney was asked If the Cit
izens's Street-railway Company gave bond
He replied that it did not, and the amendment
was lost by being laid on the table. King, Laut
and Schmidt alone voting against this action
The ordinance was then passed as it came from
the Council, Alderman Schmidt alone voting in
the negative